backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by random2.. on Mar 23 at 5:18 AM


Russia's meteor  (Source: gannett-cdn.com)
NASA needs funding for small meteor defense

NASA told Congress to "pray" if a meteor similar to the one that hit Russia last month is ever three weeks away from the U.S.

NASA administrator Charles Bolden Jr. told Congress that the U.S. doesn't have the proper equipment to identify a small meteor (the size of Russia's meteor) in a House Committee hearing on Tuesday.

"If it's coming in three weeks ... pray," Bolden said. "The reason I can't do anything in the next three weeks is because for decades we have put it off. We are where we are today because, you know, you all told us to do something and between the administration and the Congress, the funding to do that did not - the bottom line is always the funding did not come."

The U.S. is able to detect larger meteors (and offset them a bit by crashing a spacecraft into them, thus slowing them down and changing their course) with plenty of in advance, but smaller objects are more difficult because the sun blinds satellites. That's precisely why Russia didn't see the meteor coming -- and neither did the U.S. 

Had the meteor not stayed intact for only seconds longer, it would have had the impact of 20 Hiroshima bombs once hitting Russia, according to a CBS News report

Donald Yeomans, manager of NASA's Near-Earth Object Program Office, said that the U.S. needs a space-based infrared telescope to see smaller objects coming. This particular telescope would work because the sun wouldn't be an issue in blocking sight of the objects. 

Yeomans also suggested ground-based wide field optical telescopes that could keep an eye on large parts of the sky at night. 

The space-based infrared telescope would cost "a few hundred million dollars."

However, government funding remains an issue. Bolden said NASA was budgeted only $20.5 million for its near-Earth object observation program for fiscal 2012. 

While NASA doesn't see any large meteors coming toward Earth in the foreseeable future (and current large meteor detection equipment would know decades in advance), small meteors need to be taken seriously as well to prevent destruction. 

The Chelyabinsk meteor exploded over Russia on February 15, 2013. It was estimated to be traveling at 40,000 MPH and was about 11,000 tonnes. 

Source: CBS News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Bad Site?
By P_Dub_S on 3/20/2013 12:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
I just went to view this article from Anandtech and I got a warning on Firefox that this site is Malicious. Might need to check into that.




RE: Bad Site?
By Argon18 on 3/20/2013 12:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
I got the same warning. It says www.dailytech.com is an "Attack Site".


RE: Bad Site?
By mmc4587 on 3/20/13, Rating: -1
RE: Bad Site?
By maugrimtr on 3/21/2013 9:36:49 AM , Rating: 5
Linux won't save you an XSS attack or a malware install if it has a Linux module enabled...


RE: Bad Site?
By mmc4587 on 3/22/2013 7:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
Malware install?... please.
Cross Site Scripting attack... yeah that could be a problem.


RE: Bad Site?
By martin5000 on 3/20/2013 1:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
Me too, I ignored the warning because I'm a bit of a dare devil.


RE: Bad Site?
By vanionBB on 3/20/2013 1:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
Chrome did the same thing, not sure what is up with that.


RE: Bad Site?
By Spookster on 3/20/2013 1:29:42 PM , Rating: 1
I get that now trying to visit DailyTech on Chrome. Google says DailyTech is trying to infect me with malware.


RE: Bad Site?
By kleinma on 3/20/2013 1:41:58 PM , Rating: 3
I have seen malware attacks on dailytech due to 3rd party flash ads sneaking them in. The site itself seems clean, but the ads on occasion have not been, although its been a while since I have seen that here. I did notify the site owners about it when it was happening maybe 6 months ago, but never got any response over any action that was taken.


RE: Bad Site?
By Cstefan on 3/20/2013 7:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
Web sites complain about using adblock, but this is why people use it. Flash block and adblock are a beautiful thing especially if you have been burned by infected ads.


RE: Bad Site?
By unplug on 3/20/13, Rating: 0
RE: Bad Site?
By Camikazi on 3/20/2013 2:46:51 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe it just didn't pick up the attack like other browsers did and you are now infected :)


RE: Bad Site?
By Labotomizer on 3/20/2013 5:17:36 PM , Rating: 3
Actually it's doing better than Chrome/Firefox. Those two share the same "safe site" database. Daily Tech itself is fine. I have had IE10 block several attempted java based exploits over the last week though. It didn't need to block the whole website to nullify the attack.

And those attacks are why DT ended up on their blacklist.


RE: Bad Site?
By maugrimtr on 3/21/2013 9:39:52 AM , Rating: 1
It's doing worse if it allows you to access a known unsafe site. Also IE's blockers are like Chrome's - they're not failsafe - a good enough attacker can bypass them with a bit of work which is why Chrome doesn't overly rely on IE's approach. IE simply doesn't take the same shutdown approach as Chrome. Dailytech is NOT fine when reported as hosting malware.


RE: Bad Site?
By random2 on 3/23/2013 5:18:13 AM , Rating: 2
Malwarebytes Anti-Malware - Stops pests dead in their tracks.


RE: Bad Site?
By Amiga500 on 3/20/2013 2:55:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
No issues on IE10!


No detectable issues on IE10. ;-)


RE: Bad Site?
By sigmatau on 3/20/13, Rating: 0
RE: Bad Site?
By lennylim on 3/20/2013 4:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they're referring to the language here :

"Had the meteor not stayed intact for only seconds longer, it would have had the impact of 20 Hiroshima bombs once hitting Russia"


RE: Bad Site?
By Dorkyman on 3/20/2013 9:34:44 PM , Rating: 3
I don't get it.

The meteor didn't stay intact, it disintegrated in the upper atmosphere. Had it remained in one piece and hit the ground, it would have been a biggie. I think that's what the writer was trying to say.


RE: Bad Site?
By Dorkyman on 3/20/2013 9:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
Never mind.


RE: Bad Site?
By GTVic on 3/21/2013 4:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
I won't not agree ... maybe


RE: Bad Site?
By rwei on 3/20/2013 8:22:05 PM , Rating: 4
Now, if only I could set Chrome up to send me warnings for articles written by Jason Mick...


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki